Representatives from 57 countries on Tuesday signed a long-negotiated treaty prohibiting governments from holding people in secret detention. The United States declined to endorse the document, saying its text did not meet U.S. expectations.

Louise Arbour, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, said the treaty was "a message to all modern-day authorities committed to the fight against terrorism" that some practices are "not acceptable."

In Washington, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack declined to comment, except to say that the United States helped draft the treaty but that the final wording "did not meet our expectations."

The Associated Press reported that McCormack declined to comment on whether the U.S. stance was influenced by the Bush administration's policy of sending terrorism suspects to CIA-run prisons overseas, which President Bush acknowledged in September.

"Our American friends were naturally invited to this ceremony," French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said after the signing here. "Unfortunately, they weren't able to join us. That won't prevent them from one day signing on in New York at U.N. headquarters, and I hope they will."

Some U.S. allies in Europe also declined to join, among them Britain, Germany, Spain and Italy.

The convention defines forced disappearance as the arrest, detention or kidnapping of a person by state agents or affiliates and subsequent denials about the detention or location of the individual.

The treaty, adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in December, has been pushed for nearly a quarter-century by rights groups and the families of individuals who have disappeared at the hands of various governments. It also addresses the international debate over the rights of terrorism suspects.

Here is the text of the International Convention against Enforced Disappearance.

Gee, I dunno, on the one side Congo, Chad, Sudan and Uganda, and on the other, Britain, Spain, Germany and the U.S. I find it hard to imagine an issue which requires further study than what I have just said to know which side is the right one.

Gee, I dunno, on the one side Congo, Chad, Sudan and Uganda, and on the other, Britain, Spain, Germany and the U.S. I find it hard to imagine an issue which requires further study than what I have just said to know which side is the right one.....

Would it help you if one side wore black hats and the other white? That's probably a more indicative marker as to the merits here, wouldn't you say?

It's not clear whether the treaty obliges states to make "enforced disappearances" retroactively.

Why the US won't ratify? It's clearly spelled out in article 6: Article 61. Each State Party shall take the necessary measures to holdcriminally responsible at least:(a) Any person who commits, orders, solicits or induces the commissionof, attempts to commit, is an accomplice to or participates in an enforced disappearance;(b) A superior who:(i) Knew, or consciously disregarded information which clearly indicated, that subordinates under his or her effective authority and control were committing or about to commit a crime of enforced disappearance;(ii) Exercised effective responsibility for and control over activities which were concerned with the crime of enforced disappearance; and(iii) Failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress the commission of an enforceddisappearance or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution;

Considering that the president is the Commander in Chief of the Armed forces, and that Director of National Intelligence directly report to the President, this treaty could affect the presidency.

Gee, I dunno, on the one side Congo, Chad, Sudan and Uganda, and on the other, Britain, Spain, Germany and the U.S. I find it hard to imagine an issue which requires further study than what I have just said to know which side is the right one.

Actually, what I take from the fact that countries with a history of disappearing their citizens by the hundreds of thousands agree to this treaty is that this piece of paper has no real effect and is pure propaganda.

Where were the sponsors of this treaty when Saddam disappeared nearly half a million of Iraq's citizens starting in the 80s with the Kurds?

If, by chance, a handful of the sponsors of this treaty actually took note of Iraq's mass disappearances, what did they propose doing about them? Did they support the liberation of Iraq to remove the regime which was committing the mass murder?

No?

In that case, how do they intend to enforce this treaty against say Sudan as it continues to ethnically disappear the black Christians and animists from its country? Maybe they can hold another conference and voice disapproval? More probably, they will blame Sudan's genocide on George Bush for not signing this silly piece of paper.

Silly, indeed, to confuse the value of a rule with one's ability to sue over it. Law exists outside the court room as well. (Not to mention the fact that there is always the even more unpopular ICC, where enforced disappearance is listed in art. 7 (1) (i) of the Statute, as a crime against humanity.)

Particularly international law is by definition unenforceable, and using violence to enforce this treaty would be a violation of art. 2 (3) of the UN Charter, unless the UNSC has judged that the violation is a threat to the peace. Nevertheless, states have a variety of peaceful means to assure compliance, including diplomacy.

Oh, and by the way, there is a reason why countries that have a history of disappearing people have signed up to this treaty: they don't want such things to happen again.

Given that humanitarian intervention is a labor-intensive business and that our resources (and the resources of the world community) are limited, do you have any objective criteria as to when we are under moral obligation to invade another country on such grounds?

"Peter Galbraith, a staff member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, drafted punishing legislation for his boss, Senator Claiborne Pell, that would have cut off U.S. agricultural and manufacturing credits to Saddam Hussein in retaliation for his 1987-1988 attempt to wipe out Iraq's rural Kurds. The Reagan administration, protective of U.S. agribusiness, defeated the sanctions package and granted Baghdad generous financial support while the regime gassed and executed some 100,000 Kurds."

Particularly international law is by definition unenforceable, and using violence to enforce this treaty would be a violation of art. 2 (3) of the UN Charter, unless the UNSC has judged that the violation is a threat to the peace. Nevertheless, states have a variety of peaceful means to assure compliance, including diplomacy.

The only time international human rights law is actually enforced is when the United States and/or Britain take the initiative to send in troops to enforce human rights.

Diplomacy did not save the millions murdered by their governments in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Iraq, Rwanda, the former Yugoslavia and the Sudan, just to name a few killing fields.

Oh, and by the way, there is a reason why countries that have a history of disappearing people have signed up to this treaty: they don't want such things to happen again.

Tell that to Sudan and the victims of the genocide who are begging for troops to protect them the same way the victims pled in Rwanda.

For anyone who shares this illusion (delusion?), I would strongly recommend that you watch the film Hotel Rwanda.

Bart, Given that humanitarian intervention is a labor-intensive business and that our resources (and the resources of the world community) are limited, do you have any objective criteria as to when we are under moral obligation to invade another country on such grounds?

I completely agree with your point about the limits of our military manpower, otherwise I would join the call to send US troops to Sudan to stop that slaughter.

If I had to come up with some criteria for intervention if we had the troops, here are some suggestions:

1) Act while you can still stop the murder. Intervening after the ethnic cleansing was largely finished in Yugoslavia and Iraq allowed hundreds of thousands to die.

2) Finish off the regime which is murdering or the problem will not go away.

3) If you have multiple genocides, send the troops against the regime which threatens US interests the most. If we had to choose between Iraq and Sudan, I would send troops to Iraq. Sudan's Islamic fascist government is reprehensible, but it does not threaten us.

I take it you did not check the UN Charter reference I provided. Here it is:

2(3): "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

There are two exceptions: art. 51 (self-defence) and art. 42 (force authorised by the Security Council). Not only is this law, it is the UN Charter, the single most undisputed piece of international law there is.

"As the genocide progressed, for geopolitical reasons Washington, Beijing, and Bangkok all supported the continued independent existence of the Khmer Rouge regime." (emphasis added)

"Bart": You really ought to read Stephen Kinzer's "Overthrow" to get a good idea of what the "success" rate is of military operations (and the actual goals of such). Only ten bucks for a good education....

I take it you did not check the UN Charter reference I provided. Here it is:

2(3): "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

There are two exceptions: art. 51 (self-defence) and art. 42 (force authorised by the Security Council). Not only is this law, it is the UN Charter, the single most undisputed piece of international law there is.

This is the single most ignored general aspirational "principle" in the world today.

In order to make a partisan snark, you are erroneously coflating the utilitarian issue of whether diplomacy can stop government mass murder and whether past governments have exercised any means to stop genocides.

As for the Kinzer book, does the author claim that the US changing out a genocidal regimes like Nazi Germany, Fascist Japan, the USSR and Iraq was somehow a bad thing? If so, feel free to tell us what that argument might be.

2) Finish off the regime which is murdering or the problem will not go away.

Applied to Bosnia and Rwanda, that makes no sense. Applied to Iraq, it's appallingly wrong.

3) If you have multiple genocides, send the troops against the regime which threatens US interests the most. If we had to choose between Iraq and Sudan, I would send troops to Iraq. Sudan's Islamic fascist government is reprehensible, but it does not threaten us.

"Ben, one word. Just one word. Oil."

"Bart", BTW, is not only a "global warming" denier (although he seems to have absented himself from that thread when things got too hot), but he also disputes the Lancet report, despite having no substantive alternative explanation for the data reported nor any substantive criticism of the methodology. Iraq is a hellhole, moreso since the ousting (and subsequent capture and hanging) of Saddam but "Bart" thinks this is a good thing. Pretty much everyone else including the maladministration is deserting him, but he's one of the "dead-enders", I guess.

In order to make a partisan snark, you are erroneously coflating the utilitarian issue of whether diplomacy can stop government mass murder and whether past governments have exercised any means to stop genocides.

No, I am not conflating them. I am not arguing, based on prior practise (which is agurably not an attempt to stop mass murder), that diplomacy is incapable of such. I was just pointing out that Republicans and their sycophantic minions are hardly in a position to be proclaiming high ideals. It was you that brought up the bona fides of the human rights organisations, and I chastised you for your (unfounded) criticism, particularly since you so hypocritically support the Republicans uncritically today.

As for the Kinzer book, does the author claim that the US changing out a genocidal regimes like Nazi Germany, Fascist Japan, the USSR and Iraq was somehow a bad thing?...

Ummm, when did we go to war with the Soviet Union? Guess I dozed off for a second there.... Or liberate their people through "Shock and Awe", regime change, and an occupation?

... If so, feel free to tell us what that argument might be.

Why don't you read it and see what he says? Wouldn't want to spoil the ending fer ya.... ;-)